Sorry for the delay in replying; I've been living in a tent in a rural area an hour west of Eugene, as staff at a Retreat, which also might preclude my coming Saturday.
In addition to staffing KC Fan Creation programming every year since 2003, I've also been involved as a paid staff, board member, office manager, and/or secretary in multiple non-profit organizations, both local and national, in specific situations that yield some insight into the current discussions:
(A) In one case I helped compose and pass the bylaws and charter that allowed formalization of 501(c)(3) status for a local pacifist non-profit for which I was both board and staff for over 10 years.
(B) In another case I was for 7 years both board and staff in a worker collective that ran multiple clinics and was involved in major (million$+) budgeting, policy drafting, grant proposal editing, and staff hire/fire/evaluation positions.
(C) In another case I was on the national board of an international pacifist organization for a full decade, also involved in major (million$+) budgeting and policy drafting. (And, by the way, though their meetings were everywhere from NYC to SF to Houston, since they had a Travel Pool and reimbursed 50-100% of my expenses every year, it cost me less than being staff at KC, even before gas became over $4/gallon!)
(D) I also co-drafted a ballot measure that went to a municipal vote, regarding civilian review of police misconduct cases. Vastly outspent by the police union, we lost by approx. 284 votes, but we successfully planted the seed that led to Eugene's present civilian review system.
In each of these settings, I have seen basically the same pattern. An idea burgeons among a small, tight-knit group of friends with a lot of zeal. They work together well because they know each other and trust each other already, and there are positive results. This draws fervor to continue and expand the project, and many new people want to join. The folks who started the project feel reticence to rescind control over it, and simultaneously need to recruit additional help but want to ensure it will be from folks who will "fit" with their image of themselves, get along with them socially, hold the same views politically, or something similar. So they set up structures that they think will protect themselves, their positions, and/or their project, and at some point, if there is enough growth to the project and/or its participant population, those structures either become obsolete in functionality, and/or, they feel exclusionary to the ardent newbies. Whether or not actual malfeasance or cronyism does occur, speculation about it, suspicion about it, a desire to guard against it, may emerge, with suspicion in both directions -- the founders wanting to be sure no one drops or hurts their baby, and the newbies suspicious (sometimes rightly so) about what goes on behind closed doors. (I say "sometimes rightly so" because at the worker-collective clinic where I was an employee-owner, one of the old-timers embezzled over 30 grand, and it wasn't handled the same way as it would've been if an "outsider" had done it, and all those involved in protecting the thief were her old friends.......)
To continue, in each of these situations, including with KC, it is logical that, now that vastly more people and larger financial sums and greater public scrutiny are involved, there is a conmeasurate increase in participants' desire to feel included in various processes, confident in them, and informed about them. Sometimes some individuals may have some specific acrimony to work out, grudges they are holding, whether valid or exaggerated (or both). But largely in my two decades of experience in non-profits, these (actual, perceived, or anticipated difficulties, and emotional discussions regarding them) are just the norms. They should not be viewed as surprises. They should be systematically planned around--both for prevention and for redress.
The facts of the matter at hand include that most of the time, very little is known by most of the actual or potential voting populace regarding the qualifications of and/or the prior work performance of those who are nominated, let alone those who (such as Leashy) have years of pertinent experience, but it's outside the realm of cons. Sometimes people who would technically be the most qualified and professional for various positions don't or can't run for them precisely because they are engaging the requisite practices in the world outside of cons. Sometimes people may simply not feel they stand a chance because they're not the "in crowd" of the con. No specific person or group is at fault for those being the case. They simply are recurring themes. And realistically, almost no one could accurate cite off the top of their head what any of the staff-appointed or board-appointed positions entail in terms of precise job descriptions, let alone what corresponding prerequisite experience should entail.
Given all this, my gut-level, unexpurgated feelings include that:
(a) Yes, Vice President should be elected by staff.
(b) Yes, Vice President should be elected separately from the Chair position.
(c) Staff and general members should annually be reminded in a thread of the precise job descriptions of each Board-level position, regardless of who elects said position.
(d) Each job description should include a baseline level of minimum qualifications for applicants.
(e) For Secretary, Treasurer, and Facilities Liason, those minimum qualifications should be carefully set by a committee including at least some of the founders, past holders of those positions, and current board members, with anyone else permitted to propose some of the qualifications.
(f) For ALL positions, it should be prerequisite that each applicant be (1) someone willing, even eager, to be approached by any member of the board or staff with a legitimate inquiry or concern; (2) someone people generally feel comfortable to approach, safe that they will not be attacked or condescended to for doing so.
(g) Job descriptions can be written in such a way that a minimum baseline of follow-through is required. For example, job descriptions can be written in such a way that, without requiring a vote, by staff or by board, it simply becomes the case that someone is considered to have vacated that position if they [fill in the blank], and someone is considered to have failed to uphold that position if they [fill in the blank]. That way, staff can vote for every position, without removing the board's ability to remove someone from office for abuse or neglect. It can simply be part of the job description that the board will monitor compliance with job descriptions. [Yes I've seen this in non-profit organizations. Yes it saves a ton of time and hassle and needless exposure of negative dealings and bad publicity.]
(h) In the above context, I would support Secretary, Treasurer, and Facilities Liason becoming positions elected by staff. Board members would of cousre have clout in nominating.
(i) If Secretary, Treasurer, and Facilities Liason remain Board-elected positions, any member of the con community should be present at their elections.
(j) Each Board member, no matter by which body they are elected, should have an Assistant. They should be able to select their own Assistant, with ratification by the Board. This Assistant should be ready, willing, able, and fully trained, to fully take over the position if the person for whom they are Assistant were to have to leave, voluntarily or involuntarily. This Assistant should be held to the same prerequisites and performance standards as the person for whom they are Assistant.
EDIT:
[ADDED:](k) Staff should be allowed to participate in elections online, by phone, and/or by mail, through a system set up by and ratified by the Board.
[Note that I am not saying all these should be part of a present proposal. Were it up to me, there would be 2 general meetings in October: One early in the month for reviewing the con and ratifying any proposed changes; one late in the month for elections, perhaps tied in with Samhain/Hallowe'en for a party. And both would have Skype-in options.]
[END OF EDIT.]
Hope this helps.
Sent with love and with zero negative feelings towards any person or component of KC, simply based on a couple DECADES of experience in running non-profit boards!
Love Ellen/Rem.
[EDIT: ADDING: P.S. Re: Some things Staze wrote:
(a) Imho, any time there is major contention between/amongst elected position-holders, an outside mediator should be brought in, i.e., a professional mediator from outside the convention (or any non-profit). This enhances the likelihood of successful resolution, and of meeting the crucial need for the process to be perceived of as fair and impartial, not only by the participants, but also by anyone else who could (or should) hear about the matter.
(b) It is not true that the board-elected or board-appointed positions do not interact with anyone outside the board. They interact with congoers and staff on the forums, and in the course of their duties, e.g., clarifying minutes; giving reports such as on the status of the hotel search at meetings; being tracked down by those who turned in receipts but haven't been repaid yet; what-have-you. The Vice in particular I've been referred to on various occasions as in charge of various things (e.g., wheelchair access).
